By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - (Business Perspective) Does MS really need Xbox Hardware?

Tagged games:

Azzanation said:

Disagree. Not all competition is good. You think Epic Games Store entering the PC space was great competition for Valve? It caused more of a problem with consumers than gains. Nintendo and Sega were doing quite well to before Sony entered, adding that 3rd player which ended up killing Sega.

Epic entering the PC space was great for us, the consumers.

We get free games frequently.

Valve has also invested more time and effort into it's store.

The difference between before Sony entered the console market verses today is that the console market is FAR larger and FAR more mature.

Back around the mid 90's the console market was about $35 billion. - Today? $140 billion.

The 4th gen consoles finished the generation with less than 100~ million consoles across the Super Nintendo, Sega Mega Drive, PC Engine, Neo Geo, Phillips CD-i.

Fast forward to 8th generation and the Switch (122.5)+Playstation 4(106)+Xbox One(58.5) is at a combined 287 million.

And you want to try and convince the world there is no room for 3 competitors?

In an even split each manufacturer should be able to achieve 90~ million consoles in a perfect world which is perfectly healthy.

And you want to try and convince the world there is no room for 3 competitors?

Come on.

Azzanation said:

I would rather see a healthy 2 platform console race than 3. Xbox is literally wasting resources in a industry they cant compete in. Set the full focus on making great games and remove the focus on hardware. Go back to full PC development and put games on the high selling consoles to increase overall sales and IP popularity.

Microsoft is doing fine.

If you don't like their consoles for whatever reason... Then that is your prerogative.
But you don't speak for everyone.

Microsoft actually has dedicated game developers and hardware developers, taking the hardware away isn't going to change how Microsoft develops games... But it does take away potential for Microsoft's hardware teams to do cool and unique things... And they absolutely have in the past.

Azzanation said:

This also doesnt damage me the slightest as a consumer. Only benefits me. It means MS can focus solely on building the best games again without the distractions of hardware.

Yeah. Nah.

It does damage you as a consumer, reduced competition breeds complacency. - We need all three manufacturers to be healthy, to be competitive.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Around the Network
Pemalite said:


the Switch (122.5)+Playstation 4(106)+Xbox One(58.5) is at a combined 287 million.


Lol wut

More like 125, 117 and (let's say) 55 so 297. 

Come on 93% of this website is about console figures.



This thread still going!? Pretty sure Ryuu96 alredy explained with rich details the advantages of Xbox hardware side.



Azzanation said:
Pemalite said:

False, AMD and nVidia were also competing with Intel in the graphics arena, there was a point where Intel had 80% of the PC graphics marketshare, albeit even if it was all integrated.

It forced AMD and nVidia to build GPU's that exceed that bar.

For CPU's, again... x86 doesn't exist in a vacuum, you have VIA.
You also have ARM, MIPS, PowerPC all competing for the same markets that AMD and Intel sell into. (I.E. Servers, Desktops, Laptops, Tablets, Phones, Consoles etc').

Name a platform that is dominated by Intel/AMD and I bet you there is an ARM alternative.

Competition keeps things progressing forwards... And anyone who tries to downplay/shove aside competition is actually damaging themselves and their position as a consumer.

Disagree. Not all competition is good. You think Epic Games Store entering the PC space was great competition for Valve? It caused more of a problem with consumers than gains. Nintendo and Sega were doing quite well to before Sony entered, adding that 3rd player which ended up killing Sega.

I would rather see a healthy 2 platform console race than 3. Xbox is literally wasting resources in a industry they cant compete in. Set the full focus on making great games and remove the focus on hardware. Go back to full PC development and put games on the high selling consoles to increase overall sales and IP popularity.

This also doesnt damage me the slightest as a consumer. Only benefits me. It means MS can focus solely on building the best games again without the distractions of hardware.

Disagree with this point as well.  There is no situation where any company at any point in time without any competition will not abuse their marketshare.  After a while they need to protect their marketshare, they will stop innovating because why should they when there is no competition.  Even Epic coming into the space makes sure that Valve continue to do things that make their customers happy or they will leave.  There is nothing I see from Epic entering the store front space that caused any problems.

What ended up killing Sega, guess what, it was Sega.  Just like every other console company that could not compete when a new entrant enters the market with a better product.  You have so many console makers who were killed off by Sega and Nintendo.  That is how competition works, any new entrant in the market either brings something that separate them from their competition or they see themselves gone.

Your last point is pretty much the crux of all this.  Personally you believe that the market can only sustain 2 platforms but that is a misconception.  The market can sustain as many platforms based on how each platform successfully satisfy the market they target.  

Personally it would be great if we only had one console with all the games on it.  That would be a perfect world but history shows us while it sounds great, such a situation would cause whichever company to stifle any competition, monopolize the industry, raise prices and basically stop innovating.  The Sony today is directly related to the competition from MS and Nintendo.  Moves Sony has made from their console strategy, to their services to the devs they have purchase has all been direct situations caused by competition against MS and Nintendo.  The same is to be said for MS as well.

As a consumer, I always need Sony to feel MS right behind them ready to flip the status quo and Sony to push to keep it.  Case in point, I just purchased Sony PS Extra because Sony is selling it for 36 bucks for the whole year.  Why do you believe Sony is heavily discounting PS+ Extra, because of GP of course.  With no competition, there would be no need for Sony to provide this discount and we as consumers benefit from competition between them both as each seeks to secure customers.



Machiavellian said:
Azzanation said:

Disagree. Not all competition is good. You think Epic Games Store entering the PC space was great competition for Valve? It caused more of a problem with consumers than gains. Nintendo and Sega were doing quite well to before Sony entered, adding that 3rd player which ended up killing Sega.

I would rather see a healthy 2 platform console race than 3. Xbox is literally wasting resources in a industry they cant compete in. Set the full focus on making great games and remove the focus on hardware. Go back to full PC development and put games on the high selling consoles to increase overall sales and IP popularity.

This also doesnt damage me the slightest as a consumer. Only benefits me. It means MS can focus solely on building the best games again without the distractions of hardware.

Disagree with this point as well.  There is no situation where any company at any point in time without any competition will not abuse their marketshare.  After a while they need to protect their marketshare, they will stop innovating because why should they when there is no competition.  Even Epic coming into the space makes sure that Valve continue to do things that make their customers happy or they will leave.  There is nothing I see from Epic entering the store front space that caused any problems.

What ended up killing Sega, guess what, it was Sega.  Just like every other console company that could not compete when a new entrant enters the market with a better product.  You have so many console makers who were killed off by Sega and Nintendo.  That is how competition works, any new entrant in the market either brings something that separate them from their competition or they see themselves gone.

Your last point is pretty much the crux of all this.  Personally you believe that the market can only sustain 2 platforms but that is a misconception.  The market can sustain as many platforms based on how each platform successfully satisfy the market they target.  

Personally it would be great if we only had one console with all the games on it.  That would be a perfect world but history shows us while it sounds great, such a situation would cause whichever company to stifle any competition, monopolize the industry, raise prices and basically stop innovating.  The Sony today is directly related to the competition from MS and Nintendo.  Moves Sony has made from their console strategy, to their services to the devs they have purchase has all been direct situations caused by competition against MS and Nintendo.  The same is to be said for MS as well.

As a consumer, I always need Sony to feel MS right behind them ready to flip the status quo and Sony to push to keep it.  Case in point, I just purchased Sony PS Extra because Sony is selling it for 36 bucks for the whole year.  Why do you believe Sony is heavily discounting PS+ Extra, because of GP of course.  With no competition, there would be no need for Sony to provide this discount and we as consumers benefit from competition between them both as each seeks to secure customers.

Even in perfect world a single platform would still be problematic. Because if you don't have to make games to show off your console them I won't need to invest on games that may not give direct profit but turns out being great games that niches love.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
SKMBlake said:
Pemalite said:


the Switch (122.5)+Playstation 4(106)+Xbox One(58.5) is at a combined 287 million.


Lol wut

More like 125, 117 and (let's say) 55 so 297. 

Come on 93% of this website is about console figures.

To be fair, I didn't source my numbers from this website and obviously they are a little behind, but it doesn't change my argument even in the slightest.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

DonFerrari said:
Azzanation said:

I must have missed your post. What was your opinion on the matter?

Why do you want them on the market exactly?

I have made several posts here and not really wanting to repost.

But summarizing, as a customer I would have no need for MS to keep in the market, as business side for MS it makes sense to still be on the market and basically I agree with all the points for doing so that Ryu brought forward.

Ryu's posts aren't valid. As a buisness it makes zero sense for MS to waste resources in the Hardware market, hence why they have been thinking of exiting almost every generation. MS know where the money is and wont be second guessing themselves every gen if console hardware is where its all at.

Also if you agree with Ryu than you want Xbox to be in the market, so you are contradicting yourself here.

As a customer you are happy to see them fold. Thats all you needed to say.



DonFerrari said:
Machiavellian said:

Disagree with this point as well.  There is no situation where any company at any point in time without any competition will not abuse their marketshare.  After a while they need to protect their marketshare, they will stop innovating because why should they when there is no competition.  Even Epic coming into the space makes sure that Valve continue to do things that make their customers happy or they will leave.  There is nothing I see from Epic entering the store front space that caused any problems.

What ended up killing Sega, guess what, it was Sega.  Just like every other console company that could not compete when a new entrant enters the market with a better product.  You have so many console makers who were killed off by Sega and Nintendo.  That is how competition works, any new entrant in the market either brings something that separate them from their competition or they see themselves gone.

Your last point is pretty much the crux of all this.  Personally you believe that the market can only sustain 2 platforms but that is a misconception.  The market can sustain as many platforms based on how each platform successfully satisfy the market they target.  

Personally it would be great if we only had one console with all the games on it.  That would be a perfect world but history shows us while it sounds great, such a situation would cause whichever company to stifle any competition, monopolize the industry, raise prices and basically stop innovating.  The Sony today is directly related to the competition from MS and Nintendo.  Moves Sony has made from their console strategy, to their services to the devs they have purchase has all been direct situations caused by competition against MS and Nintendo.  The same is to be said for MS as well.

As a consumer, I always need Sony to feel MS right behind them ready to flip the status quo and Sony to push to keep it.  Case in point, I just purchased Sony PS Extra because Sony is selling it for 36 bucks for the whole year.  Why do you believe Sony is heavily discounting PS+ Extra, because of GP of course.  With no competition, there would be no need for Sony to provide this discount and we as consumers benefit from competition between them both as each seeks to secure customers.

Even in perfect world a single platform would still be problematic. Because if you don't have to make games to show off your console them I won't need to invest on games that may not give direct profit but turns out being great games that niches love.

The best selling games are Minecraft and Fortnite.



Manlytears said:

This thread still going!? Pretty sure Ryuu96 alredy explained with rich details the advantages of Xbox hardware side.

Nope he hasnt.

Machiavellian said:
Azzanation said:

Disagree. Not all competition is good. You think Epic Games Store entering the PC space was great competition for Valve? It caused more of a problem with consumers than gains. Nintendo and Sega were doing quite well to before Sony entered, adding that 3rd player which ended up killing Sega.

I would rather see a healthy 2 platform console race than 3. Xbox is literally wasting resources in a industry they cant compete in. Set the full focus on making great games and remove the focus on hardware. Go back to full PC development and put games on the high selling consoles to increase overall sales and IP popularity.

This also doesnt damage me the slightest as a consumer. Only benefits me. It means MS can focus solely on building the best games again without the distractions of hardware.

As a consumer, I always need Sony to feel MS right behind them ready to flip the status quo and Sony to push to keep it.  Case in point, I just purchased Sony PS Extra because Sony is selling it for 36 bucks for the whole year.  Why do you believe Sony is heavily discounting PS+ Extra, because of GP of course.  With no competition, there would be no need for Sony to provide this discount and we as consumers benefit from competition between them both as each seeks to secure customers.

You not trusting Sony isnt MS problem. As a customer i want to see MS focus on making great games, not great consoles that dont sell.

Epic was upsetting more people by taking games off Steam weeks before release. Valve has been doing just great as the sole major PC platform. It does not need competition. Competition breeds bad behaviours like we have seen.

Sega didn't kill themselves, they couldnt compete. History shows Sega and Nintendo was healthy. The moment a 3rd enters, someone ends up exiting. Just look at all the companies who left the industry. The proof shows. Only 2 can maintain enough momentum. 

Give Sony the Monopoly and let them do what they want, i dont care. MS will benefit from other platforms more. It won't affect me or MS as a whole. Console market is considered niche in the tech world.

ABK is worth $70b as a 3rd party publisher. Doing pretty well without hardware. You can try to debate it, the evidence is all here as a buisness standpoint, MS needs to drop the hardware asap so they can be the biggest gaming publisher. 

Last edited by Azzanation - on 10 May 2023

Azzanation said:

As a customer i want to see MS focus on making great games, not great consoles that dont sell.

Appears to be selling well.

Edit: Are you also going to berate yourself for commenting from a customer's point-of-view?

Last edited by DroidKnight - on 10 May 2023

...to avoid getting banned for inactivity, I may have to resort to comments that are of a lower overall quality and or beneath my moral standards.